2015 academy discussion thread (with some FS thrown in for good measure)

[CureTheSane]

The Swans have a history of fair trading with other clubs.
Hopefully this comes back to be kind to us at the end of the year

[rb4x]

I am not sure of the rules relating to a Long term Injury List. We are unlikely to get the KPD WauchopeAnalyst mentions in the rookie draft as he will be redrafted by his club who have a pick before us but what about taking him in the National Draft and then placing him on the LTIL for a year so that we can effectively replace him with a rookie until 2017. Would that be allowed. Eddie would have a fit and the VFL would probably make up a rule on the spot to prevent it happening. Would have some salary cap consequences but I like it just for the idea of seeing Eddie's reaction. It might be best for the guy concerned if he started afresh at some other club anyway.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

The magpies also need a KPD. It is interesting. Players can nominate their terms at times, if previously contracted but new players get set terms at the start and can be upgraded by the club. If he justs nominated for the draft this year with no terms, he gets basic money and we can carry the money for the year.

[Auntie.Gerald]

we will find the next Mummy !

he could be at west coast

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/player-profile/scott-lycett

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/player-profile/callum-sinclair

[707]

Or here - Will Minson (30) The Bulldogs favourite has struggled for opportunities in 2015 and has spent considerable time in the VFL. He is contracted for next year, but has seen Tom Campbell and Ayce Cordy preferred ahead of him at times. Minson's thrashing of GWS star Shane Mumford in round nine showed he still has plenty to offer at senior level.

[707]

More fiddling "to close a loophole" with the Academy points system announced just now on the AFL website.

Basically stops a club going into more deficit than what they can pay back the following year. Seems sensible.

A good bit of fiddling relates to late F/S and Academy picks although I didn't see what the VFL classified as "late" picks in the article. What it is proposing is that if you need to go into deficit next year to pick up a player this year, the deficit will come off your pick in the corresponding round next year, not off your first pick as was proposed. As the proposal stood, clubs wouldn't go into deficit for late picks because it would push back their first rounder next year.

It would be great if the way it was done was to take the first batch of deficit points from the same round next year, even as early as a second round selection. Why would you want to take a second rounder this year and burn your first rounder next year?

[liz]

More fiddling "to close a loophole" with the Academy points system announced just now on the AFL website.

Basically stops a club going into more deficit than what they can pay back the following year. Seems sensible.

A good bit of fiddling relates to late F/S and Academy picks although I didn't see what the VFL classified as "late" picks in the article. What it is proposing is that if you need to go into deficit next year to pick up a player this year, the deficit will come off your pick in the corresponding round next year, not off your first pick as was proposed. As the proposal stood, clubs wouldn't go into deficit for late picks because it would push back their first rounder next year.

It would be great if the way it was done was to take the first batch of deficit points from the same round next year, even as early as a second round selection. Why would you want to take a second rounder this year and burn your first rounder next year?

I think that is what is proposed. The article I read (which may have been in Fairfax rather than the AFL site) used the example of Carlton potentially having two second round FS candidates this year. The article clarified that any deficit points they carry forward would start being deducted from their second round pick next year.

[707]

Thanks Liz, once I thought about it, obviously it should apply from the second round, was just hoping the VFL thought the same way. After all, the aim is to get as many academy and F/S to their "home" team and not be passed over because of what was happening unfairly to the following years draft order.

Look like players not first round are considered "late" picks which is a bit how they deemed it to be by fixing the discount at the round 18 pick meaning picks after that become gradually more discounted. Bring on second round academy players!

[Mug Punter]

.

Look like players not first round are considered "late" picks which is a bit how they deemed it to be by fixing the discount at the round 18 pick meaning picks after that become gradually more discounted. Bring on second round academy players!

And it's at the 20 - 35 mark we'll see the real value of the academy.

Sure we'll get the occasional first rounder but it's the ability get guaranteed access to good players who we know best in terms of upside

[YvonneH]

A serious question for those who know more than I do about this matter.

If we take our 'The AFL/Eddie shafted us regarding the academy picks' hats off is this new bidding system going to be a help or hindrance to us (at least after this years draft) when maybe there will not be any obvious high draft picks to be had from our academy?

[707]

A serious question for those who know more than I do about this matter.

If we take our 'The AFL/Eddie shafted us regarding the academy picks' hats off is this new bidding system going to be a help or hindrance to us (at least after this years draft) when maybe there will not be any obvious high draft picks to be had from our academy?

Whilst we are playing victim to a certain extent with the points system being introduced, I think most fair minded supporters would think that we got a steal last year with Heeney who is clearly a top 5 selection at pick 18.

I actually like the new system as draft picks now have a clearly defined value and that makes trading more definitive and less opinion based.

This year we have the extreme in that Mills could be top 3 and we should be top 4 meaning a gulf between the two points wise for our first pick vs where Mills get bid on. But in a shallow draft that's no bad thing because by rights we shouldn't be entitled to a player of Mills ability if we finish top 4.

The discount is generous, particularly once you get past the first round. Pick 25 would only cost us pick 33, pick 35 cost us pick 46, pick 45 cost us pick 59 so that's a very healthy discount when you remember how teams have traded good players for less of a pick upgrade than that.

It will encourage us to take academy kids which is great as they will be more advanced than general draftees settling into the club having been in our system for years. Also no go home factor with NSW draftees.

It would be nice if the academy every year produced players spread over the draft range then we would see a real benefit to the discount. Problem is that if it's too successful, the VFL will reduce the % discount but we can always hope that Eddie & Newbold have "gone" by then :-)

[Ludwig]

Whilst we are playing victim to a certain extent with the points system being introduced, I think most fair minded supporters would think that we got a steal last year with Heeney who is clearly a top 5 selection at pick 18.

I actually like the new system as draft picks now have a clearly defined value and that makes trading more definitive and less opinion based.

This year we have the extreme in that Mills could be top 3 and we should be top 4 meaning a gulf between the two points wise for our first pick vs where Mills get bid on. But in a shallow draft that's no bad thing because by rights we shouldn't be entitled to a player of Mills ability if we finish top 4.

The discount is generous, particularly once you get past the first round. Pick 25 would only cost us pick 33, pick 35 cost us pick 46, pick 45 cost us pick 59 so that's a very healthy discount when you remember how teams have traded good players for less of a pick upgrade than that.

It will encourage us to take academy kids which is great as they will be more advanced than general draftees settling into the club having been in our system for years. Also no go home factor with NSW draftees.

It would be nice if the academy every year produced players spread over the draft range then we would see a real benefit to the discount. Problem is that if it's too successful, the VFL will reduce the % discount but we can always hope that Eddie & Newbold have "gone" by then :-)

All of your points are well made and valid. But it's difficult to weigh up the countervailing points as they can be quite subjective and differ for each of the academy clubs.

If you are GWS or Brisbane, finish fairly low on the ladder, haven't invested much in your academy and have 2 or 3 high quality players to choose, then the system looks very beneficial. It helps offset the losses due to the go home factor. For example, how many effective draft positions were lost by Brisbane due to the losses of players like Polec and Yeo?

The Swans certainly have gained the benefit of access to players like Heeney and Mills that would otherwise go to other clubs. The question is whether this is fair given the years of investment put into the academy and these are the only 2 premium players to come out of the academy system so far.

My beef with the new bidding system is that it was implemented specifically to make it as costly as possible for the Swans to get Mills and Dunkley. Why couldn't they wait another 5 years to see how the academy system worked out over a longer stretch of time before making adjustments to a system that clubs have based their previous investment on? I think we can now surmise that this was one more piece of vindictiveness by Mike Fitzgerald to hurt the Swans. It makes it hard to fairly judge the bidding system, given the hastiness of its implementation.

[Mug Punter]

A serious question for those who know more than I do about this matter.

If we take our 'The AFL/Eddie shafted us regarding the academy picks' hats off is this new bidding system going to be a help or hindrance to us (at least after this years draft) when maybe there will not be any obvious high draft picks to be had from our academy?

I think it is without doubt still the best thing that has ever happened to the club.

In many ways it works best when the talent coming through is mid range (rated 20 - 50) as we get generous discounts at that level, it is really nly the high end talent where we pay a huge whack.

It allows us a pathway to get our list up to the 70% homegrown level which I think is the minimum we will need now we don't have COLA

We get to draft players who have been in our system for many years, who are thoroughly referenced checked in terms of character and we can control who we draft based on our requirements - as an example we have a two kids but can only draft one for whatever reason. One is a KPD and one is a Mid, we can draft the one we really need with absolute certainty which we cannot do now.

It is also great in terms of community engagement.

And the main thing is it is also good for the AFL as it needs an extra 20+ AFL standard players every year from the Northern states on top of current production and an academy system toed to the clubs is the only way to prise kids away from other sports

I don't often give the AFL a wrap but I do think they have come up with a model that works. My only concern now is the GWS Riverina zone will be the next battleground

[The Big Cat]

My only concern now is the GWS Riverina zone will be the next battleground

So it should be. It is footy country and not a developmental area. After all it is the old South Melbourne zone which produced the Danihers, Ricky Quade, Dennis and Wayne Carroll, Greg Smith, Doug Priest, etc etc

[Mug Punter]

So it should be. It is footy country and not a developmental area. After all it is the old South Melbourne zone which produced the Danihers, Ricky Quade, Dennis and Wayne Carroll, Greg Smith, Doug Priest, etc etc

I largely agree with that as it should be about development not recruitment zones. The GWS counter-argument, and it's one with some validity, is that they don't have any father-son opportunities.

The Danihers are from Ungarie near West Wyalong and this area is very much 50/50 as are Leeton, Griffith and Temora (home of Trent Barrett). Wagga I'd agree with but I guess the problem is where do you draw the line?


I'd imagine that in time the Riverina Football League catchment area will be contentious but for the game I hope any funding is replaced by a similar programme. I'd like to see a NEAFL team out of Wagga drawing on that whole area.

Giving GWS the Riverina allows them the lazy way out and they have shown their lack of interest in real junior development in thw way they have treated their Sydney catchment area. Western Sydney, Canberra and south to the Riverina should be more than enough for them without them taking Swans territory